81 FR 74671 - Extension of the Prohibition Against Certain Flights in the Simferopol (UKFV) and Dnipropetrovsk (UKDV) Flight Information Regions (FIRs)
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 208 (October 27, 2016)
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 208 (October 27, 2016)
| Page Range | 74671-74675 | |
| FR Document | 2016-25962 |
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 208 (Thursday, October 27, 2016)] [Rules and Regulations] [Pages 74671-74675] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2016-25962] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 91 [Docket No.: FAA-2014-0225; Amdt. No. 91-331D] RIN 2120-AK92 Extension of the Prohibition Against Certain Flights in the Simferopol (UKFV) and Dnipropetrovsk (UKDV) Flight Information Regions (FIRs) AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Final rule. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: This action extends the prohibition against certain flight operations in the Simferopol (UKFV) and Dnipropetrovsk (UKDV) flight information regions (FIRs) by all United States (U.S.) air carriers; U.S. commercial operators; persons exercising the privileges of a U.S. airman certificate, except when such persons are operating a U.S.- registered aircraft for a foreign air carrier; and operators of U.S.- registered civil aircraft, except when such operators are foreign air carriers. The FAA finds this action to be necessary to address a continuing hazard to persons and aircraft engaged in such flight operations. DATES: This final rule is effective on October 27, 2016. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Filippell, Air Transportation Division, AFS-220, Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone: 202-267-8166; email: [email protected]. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Executive Summary This action continues the prohibition on flight operations in the Simferopol (UKFV) and Dnipropetrovsk (UKDV) FIRs by all U.S. air carriers; U.S. commercial operators; persons exercising the privileges of a U.S. airman certificate, except when such persons are operating a U.S.-registered aircraft for a foreign air carrier; and operators of U.S.-registered civil aircraft, [[Page 74672]] except when such operators are foreign air carriers. The FAA finds this action necessary to address a continuing hazard to persons and aircraft engaged in such flight operations. II. Legal Authority and Good Cause A. Authority for This Rulemaking The FAA is responsible for the safety of flight in the U.S. and for the safety of U.S. civil operators, U.S.-registered civil aircraft, and U.S.-certificated airmen throughout the world. The FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety is found in title 49, U.S. Code. Subtitle I, section 106(f), describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Section 40101(d)(1) provides that the Administrator shall consider in the public interest, among other matters, assigning, maintaining, and enhancing safety and security as the highest priorities in air commerce. Section 40105(b)(1)(A) requires the Administrator to exercise his authority consistently with the obligations of the U.S. Government under international agreements. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, subpart III, section 44701, General requirements. Under that section, the FAA is charged broadly with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing, among other things, regulations and minimum standards for practices, methods, and procedures that the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce and national security. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it continues to prohibit the persons subject to paragraph (a) of Special Federal Aviation Regulation (SFAR) No. 113, Sec. 91.1607, from conducting flight operations in the Simferopol (UKFV) and Dnipropetrovsk (UKDV) FIRs due to the hazard to the safety of such persons' flight operations, as described in the Background section of this rule. B. Good Cause for Immediate Adoption Section 553(b)(3)(B) of title 5, U.S. Code, authorizes agencies to dispense with notice and comment procedures for rules when the agency for ``good cause'' finds that those procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.'' In this instance, the FAA finds that notice and public comment to this immediately adopted final rule, as well as any delay in the effective date of this rule, are contrary to the public interest due to the immediate need to address the continuing hazard to civil aviation that exists in the Simferopol (UKFV) and Dnipropetrovsk (UKDV) FIRs, as described in the Background section of this final rule. III. Background The threat to safety in existence when the FAA first published SFAR No. 113, Sec. 91.1607 on April 25, 2014 (79 FR 22862) has not abated. At that time, the FAA viewed the possibility of civil aircraft receiving confusing and conflicting air traffic control instructions from both Ukrainian and Russian air traffic service providers when operating in the portion of the Simferopol (UKFV) FIR covered by SFAR No. 113, Sec. 91.1607, as an unsafe condition that presented a potential hazard to U.S. civil flight operations in the disputed airspace. Because political and military tensions between Ukraine and the Russian Federation remained high, the FAA was also concerned that compliance with air traffic control instructions issued by the authorities of one country could result in a civil aircraft being misidentified as a threat and intercepted or otherwise engaged by air defense forces of the other country. The FAA continues to have these concerns. On July 18, 2014, the FAA issued a Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) FDC 4/ 2182, expanding the flight prohibition to the entire Simferopol (UKFV) and Dnipropetrovsk (UKDV) FIRs, primarily as an immediate response to the shoot down of Malaysia Airlines MH17 on July 17, 2014, while flying over Ukraine at 33,000 feet just west of the Russian border. Two hundred ninety eight passengers and crew perished. In addition, there were other attacks on fixed-wing and rotary-wing Ukrainian military aircraft flying at lower altitudes, such as the shoot down of a Ukrainian An-26 flying at 21,000 feet southeast of Luhansk on July 14, 2014. As a result of these events, the FAA determined that the ongoing conflict in the region posed a significant threat to U.S. civil aviation operations in these FIRs. The use of weapons capable of targeting and shooting down aircraft flying on civil air routes at cruising altitudes posed a significantly dangerous threat to civil aircraft flying in the Simferopol (UKFV) and Dnipropetrovsk (UKDV) FIRs. The FAA published a final rule incorporating the expanded flight prohibition into SFAR No. 113, Sec. 91.1607, on December 29, 2014 (79 FR 77857). The FAA extended this flight prohibition in a final rule published October 27, 2015 (80 FR 65621). The State Aviation Administration of Ukraine conducted and completed an airspace restructuring that went into effect in the late 2014 timeframe. The new configuration altered both the Simferopol (UKFV) and Dnipropetrovsk (UKDV) Flight Information Region (FIR) altitude structures. To address the Ukraine airspace restructuring and provide additional clarity, on July 22, 2016, the FAA published a technical amendment to specifically identify the prohibited airspace in which SFAR No. 113, Sec. 91.1607, applies, with inclusive altitudes and lateral limitations (latitude and longitude coordinates). 81 FR 47699. The FAA has continued to evaluate the situation in the Simferopol (UKFV) and Dnipropetrovsk (UKDV) FIRs and has determined there is a continuing significant flight safety hazard to U.S. civil aviation. Although the European Aviation Safety Agency's (EASA) published a Safety Information Bulletin (SIB) on February 17, 2016, indicating that ATS routes L851 and M856 could be considered for planning flights in the Simferopol (UKFV) FIR, there is continuing concern over the hazard to U.S. civil aviation from possible conflicting air traffic control instructions from Ukrainian and Russian air traffic service providers. Shortly following the EASA bulletin, the Russian Federal Air Transport Agency responded with a press release in which it again asserted that it was responsible for air traffic services in a portion of the Simferopol (UKFV) FIR. The Russian circular (from Feb 21, 2016) further stated, ``The Russian Federation does not bear the responsibility for the provision of safety to those flights, which will be operated within Simferopol FIR under control of ATC unit other than Simferopol Air Traffic Management Centre.'' Russia contended that EASA's decision was politically motivated and `pose[d] a threat to aviation safety in the region.' In addition, there have been reported incidents of purposeful interference, including GPS jamming, in the Simferopol (UKFV) and Dnipropetrovsk (UKDV) FIRs. Based on this information, the FAA continues to assess that there is a significant flight safety hazard to U.S. civil aviation in the Simferopol (UKFV) FIR. In the Dnipropetrovsk (UKDV) FIR, there is an ongoing risk of skirmishes in the area and a potential for larger-scale fighting in eastern Ukraine involving combined Russian-separatist forces, which could result in civil aircraft being misidentified as a threat and then intercepted or otherwise engaged, as demonstrated by the shoot down of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 on July 17, 2014. These combined forces have access to a variety of anti-aircraft [[Page 74673]] weapons, to include man-portable air defense systems (MANPADS) and possibly more advanced surface-to-air-missiles (SAMs) that have the capability to engage aircraft at higher altitudes. Separatists have demonstrated their ability to use these anti-aircraft weapons by successfully shooting down a number of aircraft during the course of the fighting in eastern Ukraine in 2014. More recently, Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) Special Monitoring Mission to Ukraine (SMM) unmanned aerial systems (UASs) also have been shot down by surface-to-air missiles and small arms ground fire, and brought down with GPS jamming in the Dnipropetrovsk (UKDV) FIR. Due to the previously described continuing hazards to U.S. civil aviation operations, the FAA is extending the expiration date of SFAR No. 113, Sec. 91.1607, to continue the prohibition on flight operations in the Simferopol (UKFV) and Dnipropetrovsk (UKDV) FIRs by all U.S. air carriers; U.S. commercial operators; persons exercising the privileges of a U.S. airman certificate, except when such persons are operating a U.S.-registered aircraft for a foreign air carrier; and operators of U.S.-registered civil aircraft, except when such operators are foreign air carriers. This rule extends the expiration date of SFAR No. 113, Sec. 91.1607, from October 27, 2016, to October 27, 2018. The FAA will continue to actively evaluate the area to determine to what extent U.S. civil aviation may be able to safely operate therein. Adjustments to this SFAR may be appropriate if the risk to aviation safety and security changes. The FAA may amend or rescind this SFAR as necessary prior to its expiration date. Because the circumstances described herein warrant a continuation of the flight restrictions imposed by SFAR No. 113, I find that notice and public comment under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B) are impracticable and contrary to the public interest. I also find that this action is fully consistent with the obligations under 49 U.S.C. 40105 to ensure that I exercise my duties consistently with the obligations of the United States under international agreements. IV. Regulatory Notices and Analyses A. Regulatory Evaluation Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic analyses. First, Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct that each Federal agency shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs. Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354), as codified in 5 U.S.C. 603 et seq., requires agencies to analyze the economic impact of regulatory changes on small entities. Third, the Trade Agreements Act (Pub. L. 96-39), as amended, 19 U.S.C. Chapter 13, prohibits agencies from setting standards that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. In developing U.S. standards, the Trade Agreements Act requires agencies to consider international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis of U.S. standards. Fourth, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4), as codified in 2 U.S.C. Chapter 25, requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs, benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more annually (adjusted for inflation with base year of 1995). This portion of the preamble summarizes the FAA's analysis of the economic impacts of this final rule. In conducting these analyses, FAA has determined this final rule has benefits that justify its costs. This rule is a significant regulatory action as defined in section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 or as defined in DOT's Regulatory Policies and Procedures, as it raises novel policy issues. This final rule merely extends an existing flight prohibition without change. This rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule will not create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. This rule will not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or tribal governments, or on the private sector by exceeding the threshold identified above. DOT Order 2100.5 prescribes policies and procedures for simplification, analysis, and review of regulations. If the expected cost impact is so minimal that a proposed or final rule does not warrant a full evaluation, this order permits a statement to that effect and the basis for it to be included in the preamble if a full regulatory evaluation of the costs and benefits is not prepared. Such a determination has been made for this final rule. The reasoning for this determination follows. This rule extends the existing prohibition against U.S. civil flight operations in the Simferopol (UKFV) and Dnipropetrovsk (UKDV) FIRs. As we noted in the most recent previous amendment to SFAR No. 113, Sec. 91.1607 (80 FR 65621, October 27, 2015), almost all U.S. operators already had voluntarily ceased their operations in these FIRs prior to the issuance of the FAA NOTAM on July 18, 2014 (UTC), which prohibited U.S. civil flight operations in these two FIRS in their entirety. Prior to the issuance of the July 18, 2014 (UTC) NOTAM, the FAA had already prohibited U.S. civil flight operations in a portion of the Simferopol (UKFV) FIR due to a dispute between Ukraine and the Russian Federation over which country is responsible for providing air navigation services in the area, first via NOTAM and subsequently when the FAA initially published SFAR No. 113, Sec. 91.1607, on April 25, 2014. Consequently, no U.S. operators were operating in that portion of the Simferopol (UKFV) FIR at the time of the December 29, 2014 amendment to the rule. Because of the continuing significant hazards to U.S. civil aviation discussed in the Background section of this final rule, the FAA believes that few, if any, U.S. operators presently wish to conduct operations in either of these two FIRS. Moreover, both the amendment published on December 29, 2014, and this rule, permit a U.S. Government department, agency, or instrumentality to request FAA approval on behalf of a person described in paragraph (a) of SFAR No. 113, Sec. 91.1607, to conduct operations under a contract (or subcontract), grant, or cooperative agreement with that department, agency, or instrumentality. As no U.S. Government department, agency, or instrumentality has requested such approval since December 29, 2014, there is apparently little demand for such approvals. Finally, the possibility of obtaining an approval, should one be requested, lowers the expected cost of the extended rule. Accordingly, the FAA believes the incremental costs of this final rule will be minimal. These minimal costs will be exceeded by the benefits of avoiding the deaths, injuries, and/or property damage that would result from a U.S. operator's aircraft being shot down (or otherwise damaged) while operating in either or both of the Simferopol (UKFV) and Dnipropetrovsk (UKDV) FIRs. B. Regulatory Flexibility Determination The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) (RFA) establishes ``as a principle of regulatory issuance that agencies shall endeavor, consistent with the objectives of the rule and of applicable statutes, to fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale [[Page 74674]] of the businesses, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions subject to regulation. To achieve this principle, agencies are required to solicit and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain the rationale for their actions to assure that such proposals are given serious consideration.'' The RFA covers a wide range of small entities, including small businesses, not-for-profit organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a rule will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. If the agency determines that it will, the agency must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis, as described in the RFA. However, if an agency determines that a rule is not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, section 605(b) of the RFA provides that the head of the agency may so certify and a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required. The certification must include a statement providing the factual basis for this determination, and the reasoning should be clear. As described in the Regulatory Evaluation section of this preamble, the incremental costs of this rule are minimal. Therefore, as provided in Sec. 605(b), the head of the FAA certifies that this rulemaking will not result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. C. International Trade Impact Assessment The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39), as amended, prohibits Federal agencies from establishing standards or engaging in related activities that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. Pursuant to this Act, the establishment of standards is not considered an unnecessary obstacle to the foreign commerce of the United States, so long as the standard has a legitimate domestic objective, such as the protection of safety, and does not operate in a manner that excludes imports that meet this objective. The statute also requires consideration of international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. standards. The FAA has assessed the effect of this final rule and determined that its purpose is to protect the safety of U.S. civil aviation from a hazard outside the U.S. Therefore, the rule is in compliance with the Trade Agreements Act. D. Unfunded Mandates Assessment Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104- 4) requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement assessing the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final agency rule that may result in an expenditure of $100 million or more (in 1995 dollars) in any one year by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector; such a mandate is deemed to be a ``significant regulatory action.'' The FAA currently uses an inflation-adjusted value of $155.0 million in lieu of $100 million. This final rule does not contain such a mandate. Therefore, the requirements of Title II of the Act do not apply. E. Paperwork Reduction Act The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires that the FAA consider the impact of paperwork and other information collection burdens imposed on the public. The FAA has determined that there is no new requirement for information collection associated with this immediately adopted final rule. F. International Compatibility and Cooperation In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on International Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to conform to International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards and Recommended Practices to the maximum extent practicable. The FAA has determined that there are no ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices that correspond to this regulation. G. Environmental Analysis FAA Order 1050.1F identifies FAA actions that are categorically excluded from preparation of an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in the absence of extraordinary circumstances. The FAA has determined this rulemaking action qualifies for the categorical exclusion identified in paragraph 5-6.6f of this order and involves no extraordinary circumstances. The FAA has reviewed the implementation of this SFAR and determined it is categorically excluded from further environmental review according to FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,'' paragraph 5-6.6f. The FAA has examined possible extraordinary circumstances and determined that no such circumstances exist. After careful and thorough consideration of the action, the FAA finds that this Federal action does not require preparation of an Environmental Assessment or Environmental Impact Statement in accordance with the requirements of NEPA, Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations, and FAA Order 1050.1F. V. Executive Order Determinations A. Executive Order 13132, Federalism The FAA has analyzed this immediately adopted final rule under the principles and criteria of Executive Order 13132, Federalism. The agency has determined that this action would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, or the relationship between the Federal Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, and, therefore, would not have Federalism implications. B. Executive Order 13211, Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use The FAA analyzed this immediately adopted final rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). The agency has determined that it would not be a ``significant energy action'' under the executive order and would not be likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. C. Executive Order 13609, Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation Executive Order 13609, Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation, (77 FR 26413, May 4, 2012) promotes international regulatory cooperation to meet shared challenges involving health, safety, labor, security, environmental, and other issues and to reduce, eliminate, or prevent unnecessary differences in regulatory requirements. The FAA has analyzed this action under the policies and agency responsibilities of Executive Order 13609, and has determined that this action would have no effect on international regulatory cooperation. VI. Additional Information A. Availability of Rulemaking Documents An electronic copy of rulemaking documents may be obtained from the Internet by--Searching the Federal eRulemaking Portal (http://www.regulations.gov); [[Page 74675]] Visiting the FAA's Regulations and Policies Web page at http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies or Accessing the Government Publishing Office's Web page at http://www.fdsys.gov Copies may also be obtained by sending a request (identified by docket or amendment number of the rule) to the Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 267-9677. Except for classified material, all documents the FAA considered in developing this rule, including economic analyses and technical reports, may be accessed from the Internet through the Federal eRulemaking Portal referenced above. B. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA) requires FAA to comply with small entity requests for information or advice about compliance with statutes and regulations within its jurisdiction. A small entity with questions regarding this document may contact its local FAA official, or the person listed under the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT heading at the beginning of the preamble. To find out more about SBREFA on the Internet, visit http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/sbre_act/. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 91 Air traffic control, Aircraft, Airmen, Airports, Aviation safety, Freight, Ukraine. In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends chapter I of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows: PART 91--GENERAL OPERATING AND FLIGHT RULES 0 1. The authority citation for part 91 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 1155, 40101, 40103, 40105, 40113, 40120, 44101, 44111, 44701, 44704, 44709, 44711, 44712, 44715, 44716, 44717, 44722, 46306, 46315, 46316, 46504, 46506-46507, 47122, 47508, 47528-47531, 47534, articles 12 and 29 of the Convention on International Civil Aviation (61 Stat. 1180), (126 Stat. 11). 0 2. Amend Sec. 91.1607 by revising paragraph (e) to read as follows: Sec. 91.1607 Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 113--Prohibition Against Certain Flights in the Simferopol (UKFV) and Dnipropetrovsk (UKDV) Flight Information Regions (FIRs). * * * * * (e) Expiration. This SFAR will remain in effect until October 27, 2018. The FAA may amend, rescind, or extend this SFAR as necessary. Issued in Washington, DC, under the authority of 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 40101(d)(1), 40105(b)(1)(A), and 44701(a)(5), on October 21, 2016. Victoria B. Wassmer, Acting Deputy Administrator. [FR Doc. 2016-25962 Filed 10-24-16; 4:20 pm] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
![Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 208 / Thursday, October 27, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 74671
(2) The airplanes identified in paragraph agent). You are required to assure the product Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on
(c)(1) of this AD had passenger seats installed is airworthy before it is returned to service. October 17, 2016.
at manufacturer as listed in Embraer S.A. (3) Reporting Requirements: For any Pat Mullen,
Service Bulletin (SB) No.: 500–25–0016, reporting requirement in this AD, a federal
Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate,
dated December 8, 2015; or Embraer S.A. SB agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a
Aircraft Certification Service.
No.: 505–25–0020, dated December 8, 2015. person is not required to respond to, nor
shall a person be subject to a penalty for [FR Doc. 2016–25660 Filed 10–26–16; 8:45 am]
Since these are line replaceable units and the
unsafe condition of this AD was originated failure to comply with a collection of BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
during manufacturing, any passenger seat information subject to the requirements of
replaced with another one during routine the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that
maintenance is not affected by the actions of collection of information displays a current DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
this AD. valid OMB Control Number. The OMB
Control Number for this information Federal Aviation Administration
(d) Subject collection is 2120–0056. Public reporting for
Air Transport Association of America this collection of information is estimated to 14 CFR Part 91
(ATA) Code 25: Equipment/Furnishing. be approximately 5 minutes per response,
including the time for reviewing instructions, [Docket No.: FAA–2014–0225; Amdt. No.
(e) Reason completing and reviewing the collection of 91–331D]
This AD was prompted by mandatory information. All responses to this collection
RIN 2120–AK92
continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) of information are mandatory. Comments
originated by an aviation authority of another concerning the accuracy of this burden and
Extension of the Prohibition Against
country to identify and correct an unsafe suggestions for reducing the burden should
condition on an aviation product. The MCAI be directed to the FAA at: 800 Independence Certain Flights in the Simferopol
describes the unsafe condition as incorrect Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20591, Attn: (UKFV) and Dnipropetrovsk (UKDV)
installation of passenger seat attachment Information Collection Clearance Officer, Flight Information Regions (FIRs)
fittings. We are issuing this proposed AD to AES–200.
detect and correct improperly installed seat
AGENCY: Federal Aviation
attachment fittings, which could result in (h) Related Information Administration (FAA), Department of
seat damage causing injury to occupants Refer to MCAI Agência Nacional de Transportation (DOT).
during an emergency landing condition. Aviação Civil (ANAC) AD No.: 2016–05–01, ACTION: Final rule.
dated May 27, 2016, for related information.
(f) Actions and Compliance You may examine the MCAI in the AD SUMMARY: This action extends the
Unless already done, do the following docket on the Internet at: https:// prohibition against certain flight
actions in paragraphs (f)(1) and (2) of this AD www.regulations.gov/document?D=FAA- operations in the Simferopol (UKFV)
following the Accomplishment Instructions 2016-8160-0001. and Dnipropetrovsk (UKDV) flight
in Embraer S.A. Service Bulletin (SB) No.:
500–25–0016, dated December 8, 2015; or (i) Material Incorporated by Reference information regions (FIRs) by all United
Embraer S.A. SB No.: 505–25–0020, dated (1) The Director of the Federal Register States (U.S.) air carriers; U.S.
December 8, 2015, as applicable: approved the incorporation by reference commercial operators; persons
(1) Within the next 30 months after (IBR) of the service information listed in this exercising the privileges of a U.S.
December 1, 2016 (the effective date of this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR airman certificate, except when such
AD), inspect each applicable passenger seat part 51. persons are operating a U.S.-registered
for the correct installation of attachment (2) You must use this service information aircraft for a foreign air carrier; and
fittings. as applicable to do the actions required by operators of U.S.-registered civil aircraft,
(2) If any discrepancy is found during the this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Embraer S.A. Service Bulletin (SB) No.:
except when such operators are foreign
inspection required in paragraph (f)(1) of this
AD, before further flight, correct the 500–25–0016, dated December 8, 2015. air carriers. The FAA finds this action
discrepancy following the applicable service (ii) Embraer S.A. SB No.: 505–25–0020, to be necessary to address a continuing
information or using FAA-approved dated December 8, 2015. hazard to persons and aircraft engaged
procedures. (3) For Embraer S.A. service information in such flight operations.
identified in this AD, contact Embraer—S.A., DATES: This final rule is effective on
(g) Other FAA AD Provisions Phenom Maintenance Support, Avenida October 27, 2016.
The following provisions also apply to this Brigadeiro Faria Lima, 2170, São José dos
AD: Campos—SP—12227–901, P.O. Box 36/2, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
(1) Alternative Methods of Compliance Brasil; phone: +55 12 3927 1000; fax: +55 12 Michael Filippell, Air Transportation
(AMOCs): The Manager, Standards Office, 3927–2619; email: phenom.reliability@ Division, AFS–220, Flight Standards
FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs embraer.com.br; Internet: http:// Service, Federal Aviation
for this AD, if requested using the procedures www.embraer.com.br/en-US/Pages/ Administration, 800 Independence
found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to home.aspx. Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591;
ATTN: Jim Rutherford, Aerospace Engineer, (4) You may view this service information telephone: 202–267–8166; email:
FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, at the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901
michael.e.filippell@faa.gov.
Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For
telephone: (816) 329–4165; fax: (816) 329– information on the availability of this SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
4090; email: jim.rutherford@faa.gov. Before material at the FAA, call (816) 329–4148. In
I. Executive Summary
using any approved AMOC on any airplane addition, you can access this service
to which the AMOC applies, notify your information on the Internet at http:// This action continues the prohibition
appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the www.regulations.gov by searching for and on flight operations in the Simferopol
FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), locating Docket No. FAA–2016–8160. (UKFV) and Dnipropetrovsk (UKDV)
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with RULES
or lacking a PI, your local FSDO. (5) You may view this service information FIRs by all U.S. air carriers; U.S.
(2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement that is incorporated by reference at the
commercial operators; persons
in this AD to obtain corrective actions from National Archives and Records
a manufacturer or other source, only use Administration (NARA). For information on exercising the privileges of a U.S.
these actions if they are FAA-approved. the availability of this material at NARA, call airman certificate, except when such
Corrective actions are considered FAA- 202–741–6030, or go to: http:// persons are operating a U.S.-registered
approved if they are approved by the State www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr- aircraft for a foreign air carrier; and
of Design Authority (or their delegated locations.html. operators of U.S.-registered civil aircraft,
VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:32 Oct 26, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27OCR1.SGM 27OCR1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_74879/page/1.svg)
![74672 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 208 / Thursday, October 27, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
except when such operators are foreign Dnipropetrovsk (UKDV) FIRs, as effect in the late 2014 timeframe. The
air carriers. The FAA finds this action described in the Background section of new configuration altered both the
necessary to address a continuing this final rule. Simferopol (UKFV) and Dnipropetrovsk
hazard to persons and aircraft engaged (UKDV) Flight Information Region (FIR)
III. Background
in such flight operations. altitude structures. To address the
The threat to safety in existence when Ukraine airspace restructuring and
II. Legal Authority and Good Cause the FAA first published SFAR No. 113, provide additional clarity, on July 22,
A. Authority for This Rulemaking § 91.1607 on April 25, 2014 (79 FR 2016, the FAA published a technical
22862) has not abated. At that time, the amendment to specifically identify the
The FAA is responsible for the safety FAA viewed the possibility of civil prohibited airspace in which SFAR No.
of flight in the U.S. and for the safety aircraft receiving confusing and 113, § 91.1607, applies, with inclusive
of U.S. civil operators, U.S.-registered conflicting air traffic control altitudes and lateral limitations (latitude
civil aircraft, and U.S.-certificated instructions from both Ukrainian and and longitude coordinates). 81 FR
airmen throughout the world. The Russian air traffic service providers 47699.
FAA’s authority to issue rules on when operating in the portion of the The FAA has continued to evaluate
aviation safety is found in title 49, U.S. Simferopol (UKFV) FIR covered by the situation in the Simferopol (UKFV)
Code. Subtitle I, section 106(f), SFAR No. 113, § 91.1607, as an unsafe and Dnipropetrovsk (UKDV) FIRs and
describes the authority of the FAA condition that presented a potential has determined there is a continuing
Administrator. Section 40101(d)(1) hazard to U.S. civil flight operations in significant flight safety hazard to U.S.
provides that the Administrator shall the disputed airspace. Because political civil aviation. Although the European
consider in the public interest, among and military tensions between Ukraine Aviation Safety Agency’s (EASA)
other matters, assigning, maintaining, and the Russian Federation remained published a Safety Information Bulletin
and enhancing safety and security as the high, the FAA was also concerned that (SIB) on February 17, 2016, indicating
highest priorities in air commerce. compliance with air traffic control that ATS routes L851 and M856 could
Section 40105(b)(1)(A) requires the instructions issued by the authorities of be considered for planning flights in the
Administrator to exercise his authority one country could result in a civil Simferopol (UKFV) FIR, there is
consistently with the obligations of the aircraft being misidentified as a threat continuing concern over the hazard to
U.S. Government under international and intercepted or otherwise engaged by U.S. civil aviation from possible
agreements. air defense forces of the other country. conflicting air traffic control
This rulemaking is promulgated The FAA continues to have these instructions from Ukrainian and
under the authority described in concerns. Russian air traffic service providers.
Subtitle VII, Part A, subpart III, section On July 18, 2014, the FAA issued a Shortly following the EASA bulletin,
44701, General requirements. Under Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) FDC 4/ the Russian Federal Air Transport
that section, the FAA is charged broadly 2182, expanding the flight prohibition Agency responded with a press release
with promoting safe flight of civil to the entire Simferopol (UKFV) and in which it again asserted that it was
aircraft in air commerce by prescribing, Dnipropetrovsk (UKDV) FIRs, primarily responsible for air traffic services in a
among other things, regulations and as an immediate response to the shoot portion of the Simferopol (UKFV) FIR.
minimum standards for practices, down of Malaysia Airlines MH17 on The Russian circular (from Feb 21,
methods, and procedures that the July 17, 2014, while flying over Ukraine 2016) further stated, ‘‘The Russian
Administrator finds necessary for safety at 33,000 feet just west of the Russian Federation does not bear the
in air commerce and national security. border. Two hundred ninety eight responsibility for the provision of safety
This regulation is within the scope of passengers and crew perished. In to those flights, which will be operated
that authority because it continues to addition, there were other attacks on within Simferopol FIR under control of
prohibit the persons subject to fixed-wing and rotary-wing Ukrainian ATC unit other than Simferopol Air
paragraph (a) of Special Federal military aircraft flying at lower Traffic Management Centre.’’ Russia
Aviation Regulation (SFAR) No. 113, altitudes, such as the shoot down of a contended that EASA’s decision was
§ 91.1607, from conducting flight Ukrainian An-26 flying at 21,000 feet politically motivated and ‘pose[d] a
operations in the Simferopol (UKFV) southeast of Luhansk on July 14, 2014. threat to aviation safety in the region.’
and Dnipropetrovsk (UKDV) FIRs due to As a result of these events, the FAA In addition, there have been reported
the hazard to the safety of such persons’ determined that the ongoing conflict in incidents of purposeful interference,
flight operations, as described in the the region posed a significant threat to including GPS jamming, in the
Background section of this rule. U.S. civil aviation operations in these Simferopol (UKFV) and Dnipropetrovsk
FIRs. The use of weapons capable of (UKDV) FIRs. Based on this information,
B. Good Cause for Immediate Adoption targeting and shooting down aircraft the FAA continues to assess that there
Section 553(b)(3)(B) of title 5, U.S. flying on civil air routes at cruising is a significant flight safety hazard to
Code, authorizes agencies to dispense altitudes posed a significantly U.S. civil aviation in the Simferopol
with notice and comment procedures dangerous threat to civil aircraft flying (UKFV) FIR.
for rules when the agency for ‘‘good in the Simferopol (UKFV) and In the Dnipropetrovsk (UKDV) FIR,
cause’’ finds that those procedures are Dnipropetrovsk (UKDV) FIRs. The FAA there is an ongoing risk of skirmishes in
‘‘impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary published a final rule incorporating the the area and a potential for larger-scale
to the public interest.’’ In this instance, expanded flight prohibition into SFAR fighting in eastern Ukraine involving
the FAA finds that notice and public No. 113, § 91.1607, on December 29, combined Russian-separatist forces,
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with RULES
comment to this immediately adopted 2014 (79 FR 77857). The FAA extended which could result in civil aircraft being
final rule, as well as any delay in the this flight prohibition in a final rule misidentified as a threat and then
effective date of this rule, are contrary published October 27, 2015 (80 FR intercepted or otherwise engaged, as
to the public interest due to the 65621). demonstrated by the shoot down of
immediate need to address the The State Aviation Administration of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 on July 17,
continuing hazard to civil aviation that Ukraine conducted and completed an 2014. These combined forces have
exists in the Simferopol (UKFV) and airspace restructuring that went into access to a variety of anti-aircraft
VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:32 Oct 26, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27OCR1.SGM 27OCR1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_74879/page/2.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 208 / Thursday, October 27, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 74675
• Visiting the FAA’s Regulations and § 91.1607 Special Federal Aviation Regulatory Affairs & Collaborative
Policies Web page at http:// Regulation No. 113—Prohibition Against Action—Indian Affairs, (202) 273–4680;
www.faa.gov/regulations_policies or Certain Flights in the Simferopol (UKFV) elizabeth.appel@bia.gov.
and Dnipropetrovsk (UKDV) Flight
• Accessing the Government Publishing Information Regions (FIRs). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Office’s Web page at http:// * * * * * I. Summary of Rule
www.fdsys.gov (e) Expiration. This SFAR will remain II. Procedural Requirements
in effect until October 27, 2018. The A. Regulatory Planning and Review (E.O.
Copies may also be obtained by 12866)
FAA may amend, rescind, or extend this
sending a request (identified by docket B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
SFAR as necessary.
or amendment number of the rule) to C. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
the Federal Aviation Administration, Issued in Washington, DC, under the
authority of 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 40101(d)(1), Fairness Act
Office of Rulemaking, ARM–1, 800 D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
40105(b)(1)(A), and 44701(a)(5), on October
Independence Avenue SW., 21, 2016. E. Takings (E.O. 12630)
Washington, DC 20591, or by calling Victoria B. Wassmer, F. Federalism (E.O. 13132)
(202) 267–9677. G. Civil Justice Reform (E.O. 12988)
Acting Deputy Administrator.
Except for classified material, all H. Consultation With Indian Tribes (E.O.
[FR Doc. 2016–25962 Filed 10–24–16; 4:20 pm]
documents the FAA considered in 13175 and Departmental policy)
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P I. Paperwork Reduction Act
developing this rule, including
J. National Environmental Policy Act
economic analyses and technical
K. Effects on the Energy Supply (E.O.
reports, may be accessed from the DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 13211)
Internet through the Federal L. Clarity of This Regulation
eRulemaking Portal referenced above. Bureau of Indian Affairs M. Public Availability of Comments
B. Small Business Regulatory N. Determination To Issue an Interim Final
25 CFR Part 11 Rule With Immediate Effective Date
Enforcement Fairness Act
[178A2100DD/AAKC001030/ I. Summary of Rule
The Small Business Regulatory A0A501010.999900 253G]
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 Courts of Indian Offenses operate in
RIN 1076–AF33
(SBREFA) requires FAA to comply with those areas of Indian country where
small entity requests for information or Addition of the Wind River Indian tribes retain jurisdiction over Indians
advice about compliance with statutes Reservation to the List of Courts of exclusive of State jurisdiction, but
and regulations within its jurisdiction. Indian Offenses where tribal courts have not been
A small entity with questions regarding established to fully exercise that
this document may contact its local AGENCY: Bureau of Indian Affairs,
Interior. jurisdiction. The Eastern Shoshone
FAA official, or the person listed under Tribe and the Northern Arapaho Tribe
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT ACTION: Interim final rule.
have a joint interest in the Wind River
heading at the beginning of the
SUMMARY: This interim final rule Indian Reservation, however the current
preamble. To find out more about
establishes a Court of Indian Offenses tribal court operating on the reservation,
SBREFA on the Internet, visit http://
(also known as CFR Court) for the Wind the Shoshone & Arapaho Tribal Court, is
www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/
River Indian Reservation until the currently operating without the support
rulemaking/sbre_act/. agency can promulgate a final rule that of both tribes, and with such limited
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 91 considers comments received. resources, that it may cease operations
DATES: This interim final rule is without notice. To ensure the continued
Air traffic control, Aircraft, Airmen, effective on October 27, 2016. Submit administration of justice on the
Airports, Aviation safety, Freight, comments by November 28, 2016. Reservation, the BIA is taking steps to
Ukraine. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments ensure that judicial services will
In consideration of the foregoing, the by any of the following methods: continue to be provided if the Shoshone
Federal Aviation Administration • Federal rulemaking portal & Arapaho Tribal Court ceases
amends chapter I of title 14, Code of www.regulations.gov. The rule is listed operations. Therefore, this rule revises a
Federal Regulations, as follows: under the agency name ‘‘Bureau of section of 25 CFR part 11 to add the
Indian Affairs.’’ Wind River Indian Reservation in
PART 91—GENERAL OPERATING AND • Mail, Hand Delivery, or Courier: Ms. Wyoming to the list of areas in Indian
FLIGHT RULES Elizabeth Appel, Office of Regulatory Country with established Courts of
Affairs & Collaborative Action, U.S. Indian Offenses (also known as CFR
■ 1. The authority citation for part 91 Department of the Interior, 1849 C Street
Courts). This rule inserts the Wind River
continues to read as follows: NW., Mail Stop 3642, Washington, DC
Indian Reservation into a new paragraph
20240.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 1155, • We cannot ensure that comments (d) in 25 CFR 11.100.
40101, 40103, 40105, 40113, 40120, 44101, received after the close of the comment Adding this reservation will allow for
44111, 44701, 44704, 44709, 44711, 44712, period (see DATES) will be included in BIA to constitute a Court of Indian
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with RULES
44715, 44716, 44717, 44722, 46306, 46315, the docket for this rulemaking and Offenses that can provide for the
46316, 46504, 46506–46507, 47122, 47508, considered. Comments sent to an administration of justice until such time
47528–47531, 47534, articles 12 and 29 of the address other than those listed above as the Northern Arapaho and Eastern
Convention on International Civil Aviation will not be included in the docket for Shoshone Tribes put into effect a court
(61 Stat. 1180), (126 Stat. 11). this rulemaking. system that meets regulatory
■ 2. Amend § 91.1607 by revising FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. requirements and is capable of serving
paragraph (e) to read as follows: Elizabeth Appel, Director, Office of the entire reservation.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:32 Oct 26, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27OCR1.SGM 27OCR1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_74879/page/5.svg)
Document Created: 2016-10-27 01:52:14
Document Modified: 2016-10-27 01:52:14
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration | |
| Section | Rules and Regulations | |
| Action | Final rule. | |
| Dates | This final rule is effective on October 27, 2016. | |
| Contact | Michael Filippell, Air Transportation Division, AFS-220, Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone: 202-267-8166; email: [email protected] | |
| FR Citation | 81 FR 74671 | |
| RIN Number | 2120-AK92 | |
| CFR Associated | Air Traffic Control; Aircraft; Airmen; Airports; Aviation Safety; Freight and Ukraine |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR